-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
GOOD AND BAD
The I-AM as Creature usually fights the good fight, Maybe he first
takes the side of the bad guy against the good guy or maybe the otherway
around, which ever sides balances the game. If he loses, he takes the
opposite side. As he continues to lose in each role of good or bad, he
continues to flip flop back and forth until he is a marble rolling around
the drain to hell.
This dwindling spiral is powered by love and high regret on
both sides of the fence.
The good feel guilty for doing bad to bad guys, and the
bad feel guilty for doing good to good guys.
It happens.
Eventually he becomes a bug eating off the crud stuck to the
sides of the pipe that leads from the drain on down. That's where
this universe is, stuck in muck on the side of the pipe. The colony
of human bug infestation is called civilization.
The I-AM as Creator takes the side of whoever is losing, the
Creator is more interested in continuing the play of the game, than in
any side winning, which is a loss for the Creator. The Creator is
interested in having and playing GAMES, winning or losing the game
causes a loss of the game.
The Creator is not good nor bad, the Creator is Divine, its
intent is Comedy.
Divine Comedy is the interplay of make wrong between good guy and bad
guy, neither taking full responsibility for putting them selves and the
other there.
The Creator is an Artist.
Existence is its canvas.
Good and Bad are its paints.
The Creature IS the Creator in carnation.
Thus Justice reigns at all times, as the Creator has exactly what
it created for itself to play in.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Nov 22 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore203.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFUcEPqURT1lqxE3HERAnq+AJ9s4PaY1/PJDmaYtvQ8eng89VNzTQCgisI2
P02KkTVZE4v8MN4/G6i2Q64=
=JOh9
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tue Nov 25 18:35:22 EST 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Feb 27 12:00:05 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore203.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcdsIWURT1lqxE3HERApVfAKCD/McKZD28Jx1+dn2LwePVT9N+EQCeL7lY
MVVBD1reFdvvx4Du2Bac1eg=
=CKGM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
ADORE39 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
OPENING THETAN
Here is what Adore says about total responsibility.
RESPONSIBILITY means you either created it or approved of it.
If you cease creating it, or approving of it, it will cease to
exist.
The apparency that one can not stop creating something is born of
not really wanting to stop it yet, no matter how much one thinks one
does.
Apparently not knowing how one created OR IS CREATING something, nor how
to stop creating it is part of the safety latch to keep things
around until one is really ready to know how to operate again.
There is usually a flinch to having unlimited power.
Adore is a baby phase religion, its concept of 'the beginning of
things' may not be the actual beginning. This is its concept of the
beginning as far back as it can imagine.
When a thetan first wakes up from static, the Big Snooze, it is
alone.
If it wishes to not be alone it can either shatter and play with
itself for a while, or it can put out a resonant call to other thetans
who are also awake putting out a similar resonant call.
Once it joins with those other thetans, it can create games from
there, or it can join with those others and pretend to be one and
shatter and go on from there. In this latter case, every shatter
fragment may have a 'piece'of all beings in it.
Thetan's are not made of something that can shatter, so
shatter is poetic at best.
When the waking thetan first puts out his resonant call to other
waking thetans, if there are no other thetans putting out a resonant
call at that time, the first thetan can either continue on alone for a
while and try again later, or it can go back to sleep, OR it can go back
to sleep with a sign on its door saying that any resonant call that
comes in from another thetan should wake it immediately.
A resonant call issued by one thetan to gather other thetans of
like mind into a group is not sufficient to wake a sleeping thetan
UNLESS they have left a 'door sign' that they should be so woken by a
resonant call.
When waking thetans put out resonant calls to each other they join
together into a co conscious group of UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Each thetan approves of and agrees that all other thetans should be
there, and each thetan is ABLE to be there in the group only because all
thetans including himself, are willing (and causing) him to be there.
Each chooses to choose, each chooses that others should choose, and
each chooses that all should choose more.
Otherwise no one could choose anything in the group.
Thus total responsibility for condition is maintained across all
thetans at all times.
A thetan in his opening state, either alone or after grouping with
others of like mind is in a state of operating approval.
Approval is the relationship he holds with the world, himself and
all others, and it is his basic flow, OKness, "I am and I *LIKE* it!"
If at any time thetan B creates something as part of the group that
thetan A does not approve of, thetan A will withdraw his approval of the
creation and it will vanish immediately through discreation, for ALL
beings in the group including thetan B.
This happens because the group is fundamentally a group of
unanimous consent. If any one being disagrees with a creation, that's
the end of that creation *BY AGREEMENT*.
If any one being disagrees with the existence of another being in
that group, that other being is immediately unlinked from the group. If
others disagree, then the first disagreer is unlinked. Unanimousness is
always conserved.
Thus total responsibility is maintained in that any creation was
either created OR approved of by the thetan, or else it wouldn't exist
for anyone in that group.
Now it is possible for Thetan A to say "Hey wouldn't it be grand if
I could create and approve of something that you didn't approve of and
you couldn't get rid of it anyhow!"
Perhaps thetan B and all other thetan's go "Hey that's a cool idea,
we *APPROVE!*"
Again total responsibility for condition is maintained because all
thetans either created the idea or approved of it.
Now just because a thetan approves of something, doesn't mean he is
stuck with it. As long as he is in contact with his approval of the
creation or his postulates about that creation, no matter what it is, he
can always withdraw his approval, no matter how long time later, and
that creation or postulate about the creation will vanish.
The only way a thetan can become stuck with a creation is to lose
contact with his approval of it, whether or not he created it. Remember
even if he created it, he still had to approve of it in order to keep it
around. This is knowing willing cause. The being always has veto power
over ANY creation, his or others, and if he fails to veto something, it
means tacit or explicit approval.
This mechanism of losing contact with one's own approval for
something was itself created and approved of by all thetan's in the
group! So this mechanism too can be withdrawn at any time IF the thetan
can recontact his approval of it.
Contacting approval of disapproval or the failure to veto an
inability to veto, can be a bear though.
So the thetans in the group have now created and approved of a way
to have persisting disapprovals, apparencies of no responsibility,
conflict, and inability to as-is.
This leads to not-is which leads to unexpected collisions of
creation, surprises, errors, mistakes, and accidents, the possibility
for ALL of which were created and approved of by the thetans each step
of the way as they descended into this game.
Given this, any persisting unwanted condition the thetan finds
himself in, will contain denials of approval and responsibility involved
in it, in order to keep it going.
Responsibility means full knowing willing cause with full awareness
of the consequences because the consequences or their possibility were
themselves created as an adjunct to the original creation.
The being may say "I don't know what will happen," but he has said
"SOMETHING *WILL* happen". Thus he gets a surprise acting as a
consequence to some other earlier creation.
Thus a thetan is able to not know what will happen, and yet remain
fully responsible for the fact of its happening.
And since veto power always remains, and thus the being is always
fully responsible for any persisting thing whether he created it
knowingly, or it was a 'total suprise'.
The apparent loss of knowing willing cause was itself created,
considered and approved of by one and all as part of the mastery of
tapestry (creation of the game).
Thus across all beings and all things total responsibility is at
all times maintained.
Spotting the moments of total responsibility, creation and
approval, is all that is necessary to vanish any creation.
If one wants wants it to continue, one can simply go back to
irresponsibility, disapproval and denial in order to keep it around.
"Hey my veto doesn't work any more!"
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Feb 26 12:00:04 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore39.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcdXCVURT1lqxE3HERApjfAKCsH2TShGmTXL4Huc2FUFKsmP4RmQCfci4e
xEcSVYBpPAo7iEWU6Nd4rEU=
=w3v0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
OPENING THETAN
Here is what Adore says about total responsibility.
RESPONSIBILITY means you either created it or approved of it.
If you cease creating it, or approving of it, it will cease to
exist.
The apparency that one can not stop creating something is born of
not really wanting to stop it yet, no matter how much one thinks one
does.
Apparently not knowing how one created OR IS CREATING something, nor how
to stop creating it is part of the safety latch to keep things
around until one is really ready to know how to operate again.
There is usually a flinch to having unlimited power.
Adore is a baby phase religion, its concept of 'the beginning of
things' may not be the actual beginning. This is its concept of the
beginning as far back as it can imagine.
When a thetan first wakes up from static, the Big Snooze, it is
alone.
If it wishes to not be alone it can either shatter and play with
itself for a while, or it can put out a resonant call to other thetans
who are also awake putting out a similar resonant call.
Once it joins with those other thetans, it can create games from
there, or it can join with those others and pretend to be one and
shatter and go on from there. In this latter case, every shatter
fragment may have a 'piece'of all beings in it.
Thetan's are not made of something that can shatter, so
shatter is poetic at best.
When the waking thetan first puts out his resonant call to other
waking thetans, if there are no other thetans putting out a resonant
call at that time, the first thetan can either continue on alone for a
while and try again later, or it can go back to sleep, OR it can go back
to sleep with a sign on its door saying that any resonant call that
comes in from another thetan should wake it immediately.
A resonant call issued by one thetan to gather other thetans of
like mind into a group is not sufficient to wake a sleeping thetan
UNLESS they have left a 'door sign' that they should be so woken by a
resonant call.
When waking thetans put out resonant calls to each other they join
together into a co conscious group of UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Each thetan approves of and agrees that all other thetans should be
there, and each thetan is ABLE to be there in the group only because all
thetans including himself, are willing (and causing) him to be there.
Each chooses to choose, each chooses that others should choose, and
each chooses that all should choose more.
Otherwise no one could choose anything in the group.
Thus total responsibility for condition is maintained across all
thetans at all times.
A thetan in his opening state, either alone or after grouping with
others of like mind is in a state of operating approval.
Approval is the relationship he holds with the world, himself and
all others, and it is his basic flow, OKness, "I am and I *LIKE* it!"
If at any time thetan B creates something as part of the group that
thetan A does not approve of, thetan A will withdraw his approval of the
creation and it will vanish immediately through discreation, for ALL
beings in the group including thetan B.
This happens because the group is fundamentally a group of
unanimous consent. If any one being disagrees with a creation, that's
the end of that creation *BY AGREEMENT*.
If any one being disagrees with the existence of another being in
that group, that other being is immediately unlinked from the group. If
others disagree, then the first disagreer is unlinked. Unanimousness is
always conserved.
Thus total responsibility is maintained in that any creation was
either created OR approved of by the thetan, or else it wouldn't exist
for anyone in that group.
Now it is possible for Thetan A to say "Hey wouldn't it be grand if
I could create and approve of something that you didn't approve of and
you couldn't get rid of it anyhow!"
Perhaps thetan B and all other thetan's go "Hey that's a cool idea,
we *APPROVE!*"
Again total responsibility for condition is maintained because all
thetans either created the idea or approved of it.
Now just because a thetan approves of something, doesn't mean he is
stuck with it. As long as he is in contact with his approval of the
creation or his postulates about that creation, no matter what it is, he
can always withdraw his approval, no matter how long time later, and
that creation or postulate about the creation will vanish.
The only way a thetan can become stuck with a creation is to lose
contact with his approval of it, whether or not he created it. Remember
even if he created it, he still had to approve of it in order to keep it
around. This is knowing willing cause. The being always has veto power
over ANY creation, his or others, and if he fails to veto something, it
means tacit or explicit approval.
This mechanism of losing contact with one's own approval for
something was itself created and approved of by all thetan's in the
group! So this mechanism too can be withdrawn at any time IF the thetan
can recontact his approval of it.
Contacting approval of disapproval or the failure to veto an
inability to veto, can be a bear though.
So the thetans in the group have now created and approved of a way
to have persisting disapprovals, apparencies of no responsibility,
conflict, and inability to as-is.
This leads to not-is which leads to unexpected collisions of
creation, surprises, errors, mistakes, and accidents, the possibility
for ALL of which were created and approved of by the thetans each step
of the way as they descended into this game.
Given this, any persisting unwanted condition the thetan finds
himself in, will contain denials of approval and responsibility involved
in it, in order to keep it going.
Responsibility means full knowing willing cause with full awareness
of the consequences because the consequences or their possibility were
themselves created as an adjunct to the original creation.
The being may say "I don't know what will happen," but he has said
"SOMETHING *WILL* happen". Thus he gets a surprise acting as a
consequence to some other earlier creation.
Thus a thetan is able to not know what will happen, and yet remain
fully responsible for the fact of its happening.
And since veto power always remains, and thus the being is always
fully responsible for any persisting thing whether he created it
knowingly, or it was a 'total suprise'.
The apparent loss of knowing willing cause was itself created,
considered and approved of by one and all as part of the mastery of
tapestry (creation of the game).
Thus across all beings and all things total responsibility is at
all times maintained.
Spotting the moments of total responsibility, creation and
approval, is all that is necessary to vanish any creation.
If one wants wants it to continue, one can simply go back to
irresponsibility, disapproval and denial in order to keep it around.
"Hey my veto doesn't work any more!"
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Feb 26 12:00:04 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore39.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcdXCVURT1lqxE3HERApjfAKCsH2TShGmTXL4Huc2FUFKsmP4RmQCfci4e
xEcSVYBpPAo7iEWU6Nd4rEU=
=w3v0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
ABSOLUTE POWER AND CORRUPTION
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ABSOLUTE POWER AND ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION
If we assume that absolute power leads to absolute corruption, and
that goverments as a group are moving towards absolute power, we can
then concluee that they are also moving towards absolute corruption.
This corruption presents itself as passing laws that protect the
the government at the expense of the people, by claiming they are
designed to protect the people from terrorism, when in fact they are
designed to protect the government from the people.
The idea that the spread of this corruption can be stopped by legal
means alone is a bit of an oxymoron because the spread of the corruption
is allowed by the laws so enacted in the first place.
Thus the corruption of LAW is the most dangerous corruption there
is.
"When law makers outlaw criminals, criminals become lawmakers."
THE LAW OF THE LAND AND THE LAW OF THE SKY
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/homer/law
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Feb 26 16:05:12 EST 2019
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1053.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcdaoIURT1lqxE3HERAu3rAJ4+3e9KPOHDt5gJT57wxxEr8ai2iACgxMvP
RGkJppt1XqrH0a2J5MJkhqQ=
=a/US
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ABSOLUTE POWER AND ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION
If we assume that absolute power leads to absolute corruption, and
that goverments as a group are moving towards absolute power, we can
then concluee that they are also moving towards absolute corruption.
This corruption presents itself as passing laws that protect the
the government at the expense of the people, by claiming they are
designed to protect the people from terrorism, when in fact they are
designed to protect the government from the people.
The idea that the spread of this corruption can be stopped by legal
means alone is a bit of an oxymoron because the spread of the corruption
is allowed by the laws so enacted in the first place.
Thus the corruption of LAW is the most dangerous corruption there
is.
"When law makers outlaw criminals, criminals become lawmakers."
THE LAW OF THE LAND AND THE LAW OF THE SKY
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/homer/law
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Feb 26 16:05:12 EST 2019
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1053.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcdaoIURT1lqxE3HERAu3rAJ4+3e9KPOHDt5gJT57wxxEr8ai2iACgxMvP
RGkJppt1XqrH0a2J5MJkhqQ=
=a/US
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, February 24, 2019
ADORE61 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
FEARLESS FUTURE
><homer@lightlink.com> writes:
>> The greatest OT power there is the ability to live fearlessly. I
>> don't mean bravely, I mean without fear of the eternal future.
Hoovph (hoovph@cs.comnospam) wrote:
>I disagree. We can do nothing but survive, and we're all in this together.
>There isn't any super-evil group that's trying to do away with all us *good
>people*, and we're not going to be dumped into any sudden unexpected change.
>Life just goes on, day after day, in much the same way. Always has, always
>will.
((Pig ugly stupid.
There are in fact large groups of beings in this and earlier
universes totally devoted to super evil intentions, like 'to destroy all
games for everyone forever.'
There are intentions so evil one is has not been allowed to think
or know about them, let alone talk about them, because a being creates
in the the mere conception of things, and conceiving such an intention
would start its implementation unless revoked immediately afterwards.
Sudden change is well on its way just in the form of natural
disasters, let alone man made disasters.))
Wild.
Survive? Survival as a marble rolling around the drain to hell is
survival alright, yes we can do nothing but survive. But can we quiesce
in pleasure whilst surviving eh?
If Atomic war happens, or a super controled slave state, or you
break your back and have to live in a body cast for your whole life, or
you get sent to Vietnam to die for the military industrial complex, you
will be singing a different tune.
You statement is *VERY* glib.
>> You might try running (if you haven't),
>>
>> Sovereignty and Non Sovereignty
>> Danger and Safety
>>
>Are these items to be run on four flows? Or just looking for reads on the
>words?
Spot and be with areas of Sovereignty and Non Sovereignty, Danger
and Safety on all flows, all dynamics, all universes of interest to you
and your body and your loved ones and everyone else.
Also spot "I am made" and "I make".
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Feb 24 18:46:40 EST 2019
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore61.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFccyzhURT1lqxE3HERAq0sAKCJmteTMX5vfACA+4sQ3nPSBkIfrgCfQNZ2
U4KO/gPJrjIcYOll0TJTgzI=
=vmT0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
FEARLESS FUTURE
><homer@lightlink.com> writes:
>> The greatest OT power there is the ability to live fearlessly. I
>> don't mean bravely, I mean without fear of the eternal future.
Hoovph (hoovph@cs.comnospam) wrote:
>I disagree. We can do nothing but survive, and we're all in this together.
>There isn't any super-evil group that's trying to do away with all us *good
>people*, and we're not going to be dumped into any sudden unexpected change.
>Life just goes on, day after day, in much the same way. Always has, always
>will.
((Pig ugly stupid.
There are in fact large groups of beings in this and earlier
universes totally devoted to super evil intentions, like 'to destroy all
games for everyone forever.'
There are intentions so evil one is has not been allowed to think
or know about them, let alone talk about them, because a being creates
in the the mere conception of things, and conceiving such an intention
would start its implementation unless revoked immediately afterwards.
Sudden change is well on its way just in the form of natural
disasters, let alone man made disasters.))
Wild.
Survive? Survival as a marble rolling around the drain to hell is
survival alright, yes we can do nothing but survive. But can we quiesce
in pleasure whilst surviving eh?
If Atomic war happens, or a super controled slave state, or you
break your back and have to live in a body cast for your whole life, or
you get sent to Vietnam to die for the military industrial complex, you
will be singing a different tune.
You statement is *VERY* glib.
>> You might try running (if you haven't),
>>
>> Sovereignty and Non Sovereignty
>> Danger and Safety
>>
>Are these items to be run on four flows? Or just looking for reads on the
>words?
Spot and be with areas of Sovereignty and Non Sovereignty, Danger
and Safety on all flows, all dynamics, all universes of interest to you
and your body and your loved ones and everyone else.
Also spot "I am made" and "I make".
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Feb 24 18:46:40 EST 2019
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore61.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFccyzhURT1lqxE3HERAq0sAKCJmteTMX5vfACA+4sQ3nPSBkIfrgCfQNZ2
U4KO/gPJrjIcYOll0TJTgzI=
=vmT0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, February 22, 2019
ADORE361 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
INACTUALITY
AWARENESS CHARACTERISTIC SCALE
http://clearing.org/archive?/electra/acc.memo
Inactuality is the make break point on the pc's case.
Above inactuality the pc knows what is wrong with him.
Below inactuality he doesn't.
Above inactuality, if you ask him what's the matter, he will tell
you.
Below inactuality, he will give you a confused wrong item.
Below oblivion he will tell you 'nothing, life is grand', all the
while poisoning pigeons in the park.
Inactuality is the nail point below which the God Postulate on the
pc's case can no longer be changed.
He can't change it simply and only because he no longer knows what
it is.
He can't have the problem he's got, so he won't admit what it is,
so he's trying to change SOMETHING ELSE, some other problem which he can
have, which is an alter-is and results in more persistence of both.
A God Postulate is that postulate which the pc thinks is true
because he has observed it to be true, when in fact it is true only
because he considers it is true.
God postulates are created by taking the true sequence which is
consideration -> observation
and turning it around into
observation -> consideration
The observation acts as proof that the consideration is true
independent of the consideration.
Before the flip, considerations are cause and observations are
effect. Considerations cause things to be, and then you verify they
match your original intent with observation.
After the flip, observations are cause, and considerations are
the effect.
Observations (give rise to) the consideration that something is
true because you observed it.
His consideration is that a consideration alone could not possibly
cause anything.
Which is why the pc considers that changing his mind about anything
will be fruitless.
This is called the Consideration - Observation flip flop.
This is also your pc's major upset with himself, that he ever
engaged in operating the flip flop on himself. The humorous cruelty of
it escapes him.
At any point down to inactuality the pc is able to change his mind
on any primary postulate of limitation he has made.
That is how one handles a God Postulate, the pc changes his mind
and it vanishes.
There will be many of them, not infinite, perhaps a countable heavy
hand full on a case. The charge on each one however will be 'infinite',
finite but without upper limit, filled with forevers and nevers and loss
of an infinite number of beautiful eternities etc.
Below inactuality the pc no longer knows that the problem is, so
he can't change his mind about it. He will consider OTHER things are
the problem, and try to change his mind about them, but it won't work,
and he will become more convinced that postulates do not work.
He tried to change his postulates about something and it didn't
work, no change ensued.
That's his observation that postulates did not cause the thing
in the first place, and thus changing postulates won't fix it either.
This observation he uses as proof that postulates do not work.
You see postulates work. If you postulate you can't (do something)
then you can't. But that's because you CAN. You see this?
The postulate that postulates don't work, works.
But a postulate can't be un done without undoing the original true
primary postulate on that chain of God postulates.
Thus once he has started his permanent personal nose dive below
inactuality, any new postulate he makes won't be undoable because he
isn't considering that postulates do anything anyhow. All postulates
are drawn from observations from there on out.
Who the hell knows WHAT is creating reality for him at that
point, HE certainly doesn't want to know.
If you let something else create reality for you, what gets
created?
Inactuality is an effort to make nothing of one of the prime
incidents on the pc's case. If assessed for duration it will read and
indicate as FOREVER. This is because the incident is still going on.
He is suffering permanently from the effects of his own
postulates.
When assessed for when, date, it will read as timeless.
When assesed for where, location, it will read as everywhere.
He has had it with him for a very long time, and carried it with
him to a lot of different places.
Trying to find the beginning of this thing is hard. You are
trying to bring the pc up above inactuality to disaster.
From there it is merely a matter of changing one's mind on the
various God postulates found. Each one will go from a lot of struggle
and 'I am sunk' to calmness and 'Wow look at that'.
Once the prime postulate is found on the chain, the pc can simply
be there and change his mind about it and watch it vanish. His first
time, his own disbelief will put him on the balance point between
persistence and vanishment, but if he just calms the struggle, just sits
there with it and watches it persist with the willingness to have it be
just for a while (with no limit on how long the while is other than it
be finite) truth will win and the condition will start to dissolve.
His future on the subject will reverse before his eyes and go
from negative to positive.
Once a pc gets the hang of this, and comes to UNDERSTAND the
mechanism at work, he will be a terror to any case that crosses his
path.
For most pc's, the actual prime incident on the chain has sunk way
below inactuality, down through oblivion ("What case?"), through
elation, glee, fixidity, erosion, dispersal, disassociation, criminality,
uncausing, disconnection and unexistence.
Disconnection is from the story line he was connected to and
involved and engaged in.
Ever run into someone who was just totally stumpy, they just
wouldn't budge no matter what you did or said? That's fixidity on the
tone scale. Its a last ditch effort to hold on to existence no matter
what.
The last effort of a being trying to give is to take. That's
criminality on the tone scale and here you will find intentions too dark
to countenance.
Permission issues abound here, permission to open pandora's box.
He knows its not just him that's in trouble but the AllThatIs from
the top down. He is going to mess up heaven and hell for EVERYONE and
everything if he does it wrong.
The only remaining solution for the pc is to disconnect and unexist
as a spirit. Good luck.
Each God Postulate chain will be found to have nails at least at
unexistence, fixidity, oblivion, shock and inactuality. These are the
ridge points. Most of the rest are flows and dispersals.
Start at inactuality - NO inactuality, and when reads dry up, go
downwards until you start to get reads again. NEVER run an item without
also running the NO item, and always run the NO item first.
Never go past an item without having checked for sync,
Continue to the bottom, then come back up once the bottom losens
up. The pc won't have a clue what he is running, its all black until
the inactuality blows off. But he will recognize his blankness and the
blankness of others as a serious indication that something is there and
needs to be handled.
He also won't be making things worse during the day or sleep any
more. Convulsive not-isness, no understanding that something WAS
buried, will becomes things of the past.
His life will now audit him properly rather than sink him deeper.
When you hit the qualms, you are winning.
The qualms is 'this might be better to not look at, not know
about'.
Fear of fear will turn on along with fear of not knowing
and fear of knowing.
He will put up impossibility, preposterousness, incredibility, no
permission and overwhelming shame as last ditch efforts to stay dead.
Better to have never loved, than to have loved and lost.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Aug 15 15:47:47 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 22 12:00:04 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore361.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFccCqUURT1lqxE3HERAr9cAKDBgjrSd/zcUFk5sogJkhOffDcvwgCfUkqL
RnJTc/l7RRJxFK9Jv2s/QZ4=
=xQHJ
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Feb 22 18:17:32 EST 2019
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore361.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFccIMMURT1lqxE3HERAhfuAKCHS3HlYi24xpg0tx0d8OT1R16ErgCfUtb1
EZSpbBBk+FNoUZStdG86lJA=
=VtKY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
INACTUALITY
AWARENESS CHARACTERISTIC SCALE
http://clearing.org/archive?/electra/acc.memo
Inactuality is the make break point on the pc's case.
Above inactuality the pc knows what is wrong with him.
Below inactuality he doesn't.
Above inactuality, if you ask him what's the matter, he will tell
you.
Below inactuality, he will give you a confused wrong item.
Below oblivion he will tell you 'nothing, life is grand', all the
while poisoning pigeons in the park.
Inactuality is the nail point below which the God Postulate on the
pc's case can no longer be changed.
He can't change it simply and only because he no longer knows what
it is.
He can't have the problem he's got, so he won't admit what it is,
so he's trying to change SOMETHING ELSE, some other problem which he can
have, which is an alter-is and results in more persistence of both.
A God Postulate is that postulate which the pc thinks is true
because he has observed it to be true, when in fact it is true only
because he considers it is true.
God postulates are created by taking the true sequence which is
consideration -> observation
and turning it around into
observation -> consideration
The observation acts as proof that the consideration is true
independent of the consideration.
Before the flip, considerations are cause and observations are
effect. Considerations cause things to be, and then you verify they
match your original intent with observation.
After the flip, observations are cause, and considerations are
the effect.
Observations (give rise to) the consideration that something is
true because you observed it.
His consideration is that a consideration alone could not possibly
cause anything.
Which is why the pc considers that changing his mind about anything
will be fruitless.
This is called the Consideration - Observation flip flop.
This is also your pc's major upset with himself, that he ever
engaged in operating the flip flop on himself. The humorous cruelty of
it escapes him.
At any point down to inactuality the pc is able to change his mind
on any primary postulate of limitation he has made.
That is how one handles a God Postulate, the pc changes his mind
and it vanishes.
There will be many of them, not infinite, perhaps a countable heavy
hand full on a case. The charge on each one however will be 'infinite',
finite but without upper limit, filled with forevers and nevers and loss
of an infinite number of beautiful eternities etc.
Below inactuality the pc no longer knows that the problem is, so
he can't change his mind about it. He will consider OTHER things are
the problem, and try to change his mind about them, but it won't work,
and he will become more convinced that postulates do not work.
He tried to change his postulates about something and it didn't
work, no change ensued.
That's his observation that postulates did not cause the thing
in the first place, and thus changing postulates won't fix it either.
This observation he uses as proof that postulates do not work.
You see postulates work. If you postulate you can't (do something)
then you can't. But that's because you CAN. You see this?
The postulate that postulates don't work, works.
But a postulate can't be un done without undoing the original true
primary postulate on that chain of God postulates.
Thus once he has started his permanent personal nose dive below
inactuality, any new postulate he makes won't be undoable because he
isn't considering that postulates do anything anyhow. All postulates
are drawn from observations from there on out.
Who the hell knows WHAT is creating reality for him at that
point, HE certainly doesn't want to know.
If you let something else create reality for you, what gets
created?
Inactuality is an effort to make nothing of one of the prime
incidents on the pc's case. If assessed for duration it will read and
indicate as FOREVER. This is because the incident is still going on.
He is suffering permanently from the effects of his own
postulates.
When assessed for when, date, it will read as timeless.
When assesed for where, location, it will read as everywhere.
He has had it with him for a very long time, and carried it with
him to a lot of different places.
Trying to find the beginning of this thing is hard. You are
trying to bring the pc up above inactuality to disaster.
From there it is merely a matter of changing one's mind on the
various God postulates found. Each one will go from a lot of struggle
and 'I am sunk' to calmness and 'Wow look at that'.
Once the prime postulate is found on the chain, the pc can simply
be there and change his mind about it and watch it vanish. His first
time, his own disbelief will put him on the balance point between
persistence and vanishment, but if he just calms the struggle, just sits
there with it and watches it persist with the willingness to have it be
just for a while (with no limit on how long the while is other than it
be finite) truth will win and the condition will start to dissolve.
His future on the subject will reverse before his eyes and go
from negative to positive.
Once a pc gets the hang of this, and comes to UNDERSTAND the
mechanism at work, he will be a terror to any case that crosses his
path.
For most pc's, the actual prime incident on the chain has sunk way
below inactuality, down through oblivion ("What case?"), through
elation, glee, fixidity, erosion, dispersal, disassociation, criminality,
uncausing, disconnection and unexistence.
Disconnection is from the story line he was connected to and
involved and engaged in.
Ever run into someone who was just totally stumpy, they just
wouldn't budge no matter what you did or said? That's fixidity on the
tone scale. Its a last ditch effort to hold on to existence no matter
what.
The last effort of a being trying to give is to take. That's
criminality on the tone scale and here you will find intentions too dark
to countenance.
Permission issues abound here, permission to open pandora's box.
He knows its not just him that's in trouble but the AllThatIs from
the top down. He is going to mess up heaven and hell for EVERYONE and
everything if he does it wrong.
The only remaining solution for the pc is to disconnect and unexist
as a spirit. Good luck.
Each God Postulate chain will be found to have nails at least at
unexistence, fixidity, oblivion, shock and inactuality. These are the
ridge points. Most of the rest are flows and dispersals.
Start at inactuality - NO inactuality, and when reads dry up, go
downwards until you start to get reads again. NEVER run an item without
also running the NO item, and always run the NO item first.
Never go past an item without having checked for sync,
Continue to the bottom, then come back up once the bottom losens
up. The pc won't have a clue what he is running, its all black until
the inactuality blows off. But he will recognize his blankness and the
blankness of others as a serious indication that something is there and
needs to be handled.
He also won't be making things worse during the day or sleep any
more. Convulsive not-isness, no understanding that something WAS
buried, will becomes things of the past.
His life will now audit him properly rather than sink him deeper.
When you hit the qualms, you are winning.
The qualms is 'this might be better to not look at, not know
about'.
Fear of fear will turn on along with fear of not knowing
and fear of knowing.
He will put up impossibility, preposterousness, incredibility, no
permission and overwhelming shame as last ditch efforts to stay dead.
Better to have never loved, than to have loved and lost.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Aug 15 15:47:47 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 22 12:00:04 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore361.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFccCqUURT1lqxE3HERAr9cAKDBgjrSd/zcUFk5sogJkhOffDcvwgCfUkqL
RnJTc/l7RRJxFK9Jv2s/QZ4=
=xQHJ
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Feb 22 18:17:32 EST 2019
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore361.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFccIMMURT1lqxE3HERAhfuAKCHS3HlYi24xpg0tx0d8OT1R16ErgCfUtb1
EZSpbBBk+FNoUZStdG86lJA=
=VtKY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
LOGIC1 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Homer Wilson Smith (homer@lightlink.com) wrote:
>> It is one thing to say that there is knowledge outside
>>of the realm of Aristotelian logic, but the moment one
>>makes Aristotelian statements, one must be bound by it, otherwise
>>one is merely spewing inconsistent babble.
>> All dogs have 4 legs.
>> My dog Joey has 2 legs.
>> One or both sentences MUST be wrong.
>> Homer
>Explain ARistotelian states. Do you mean statements? And if so, what does
>that mean?
Statements, yes. typo
If you make a statement like,
All dogs have 4 legs.
You have entered into an Aristotelian arena where you must
continue to abide by the rules.
All dogs have 4 legs means is not true that some dogs have 3
legs.
If someone says "All dogs have 4 legs AND my dog has 3 legs", then you
never know what the person means when they say anything.
Some people will assert that all IS statements, any statment that
asserts anything is true or is not true, are themselves false.
But notice that the statement that all IS statments are false is
an IS statement, so is self denying.
So these people are non functional.
Or some will say A is both true and not true at the same time
etc.
It is probably true that as one gets high on the tone scale, ALL
IS statements become absurd, but notice that assertion is an IS
statement. But assuming that this is possible, then at that high
level all IS statements are of limited value and truth INCLUDING the
IS statement that "All things that flow from God are Good." which
becomes just as valueless and absurd as any other IS statement.
>In the other thread, you attempted to couch your presentation in an
>Aristotelian syllogistic form. The conclusion from that attempt did not
>sit well with me. I abandoned the conclusion-drawing from the
>syllogism-process, and simply stated a series of propositions I understand
>to be true.
1.) All that flows from God is Good.
2.) "Man that can do bad" flows from God.
3.) "Man that can do bad" is not Good.
Your propositions are self contradictory, thus they say nothing.
You also continue to weasel endlessly about the subject of
responsibility.
If I create a creation that can itself create things, and I know
before hand that this creation can create bad things, and I create it
so that it CAN create bad things, then *I* am fully responsible and
accountable for the bad things that my creation creates. This is
absolute and unarguable. No human would dare say otherwise.
This also applies to God.
If God makes man knowing that man can do bad, and creates in man
the ability to do bad, and man does bad, then God is responsible and
accountable for that bad. He didn't have to create man, he didn't
have to give man the ability to do bad, he KNEW what would happen if
he did, and so there is no escaping the full responsibility in the
matter.
Whether man is ALSO responsible does not in any way detract from
the FULL responsibility of God for the result of his knowing willing
creation with full awareness of the consequences.
I am made in the image of God, if *I* am responsible for my
creation's creations, then so is God.
Why should I be held to a higher standard of responsibility than
God?
Your inability to deal with these issues in a straight forward
manner, has hounded our relationship since the beginning. Since you
deny the validity or usefulness of logic, yet continue to use logical
propositions in your descriptions of reality, I can only conclude that
at no time have you ever said anything that actually was meaningful.
It may have made sense at the time, just as it makes sense when
you say "All dogs have 4 legs", but later when I hear "And my dog has
3 legs", I know that whatever you meant by those two sentences was
certainly not what I nor anyone else meant by them.
Thus people who deny the validity and usefulness of logic, people
with broken minds, can carry on seemingly meaningful conversations
with others, even reach apparent agreements, but the others are
talking with a broken mind that is merely spewing phrases unrelated to
each other no matter the apparent coherency of the presentation.
Once the internal inconsistencies are spotted in the spew, one
takes the presenter to task for them, if the presenter weasels and
refuses to come clean and ethical about their logic, then one condemns
the presenter's mind as broken and an abomination before God and be
done with them.
Broken minds and the willful use of illogic in the pretense to
wisdom is a matter of criminal ethics.
Basically in a different place and different time, broken minds
that refuse to fix, or are unable to fix, should be executed and
removed as they are a pox upon the face of existence, and probably the
sum total source of what is wrong with life on Earth.
Homer
>- CBW
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Feb 20 12:00:04 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic1.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcbYeVURT1lqxE3HERAq5tAJ9OxFHj2WecTaThJWdF5Bap3vz/LwCfWl+e
leBY/4qUueW3lJgH6srfv8w=
=SeJc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Homer Wilson Smith (homer@lightlink.com) wrote:
>> It is one thing to say that there is knowledge outside
>>of the realm of Aristotelian logic, but the moment one
>>makes Aristotelian statements, one must be bound by it, otherwise
>>one is merely spewing inconsistent babble.
>> All dogs have 4 legs.
>> My dog Joey has 2 legs.
>> One or both sentences MUST be wrong.
>> Homer
>Explain ARistotelian states. Do you mean statements? And if so, what does
>that mean?
Statements, yes. typo
If you make a statement like,
All dogs have 4 legs.
You have entered into an Aristotelian arena where you must
continue to abide by the rules.
All dogs have 4 legs means is not true that some dogs have 3
legs.
If someone says "All dogs have 4 legs AND my dog has 3 legs", then you
never know what the person means when they say anything.
Some people will assert that all IS statements, any statment that
asserts anything is true or is not true, are themselves false.
But notice that the statement that all IS statments are false is
an IS statement, so is self denying.
So these people are non functional.
Or some will say A is both true and not true at the same time
etc.
It is probably true that as one gets high on the tone scale, ALL
IS statements become absurd, but notice that assertion is an IS
statement. But assuming that this is possible, then at that high
level all IS statements are of limited value and truth INCLUDING the
IS statement that "All things that flow from God are Good." which
becomes just as valueless and absurd as any other IS statement.
>In the other thread, you attempted to couch your presentation in an
>Aristotelian syllogistic form. The conclusion from that attempt did not
>sit well with me. I abandoned the conclusion-drawing from the
>syllogism-process, and simply stated a series of propositions I understand
>to be true.
1.) All that flows from God is Good.
2.) "Man that can do bad" flows from God.
3.) "Man that can do bad" is not Good.
Your propositions are self contradictory, thus they say nothing.
You also continue to weasel endlessly about the subject of
responsibility.
If I create a creation that can itself create things, and I know
before hand that this creation can create bad things, and I create it
so that it CAN create bad things, then *I* am fully responsible and
accountable for the bad things that my creation creates. This is
absolute and unarguable. No human would dare say otherwise.
This also applies to God.
If God makes man knowing that man can do bad, and creates in man
the ability to do bad, and man does bad, then God is responsible and
accountable for that bad. He didn't have to create man, he didn't
have to give man the ability to do bad, he KNEW what would happen if
he did, and so there is no escaping the full responsibility in the
matter.
Whether man is ALSO responsible does not in any way detract from
the FULL responsibility of God for the result of his knowing willing
creation with full awareness of the consequences.
I am made in the image of God, if *I* am responsible for my
creation's creations, then so is God.
Why should I be held to a higher standard of responsibility than
God?
Your inability to deal with these issues in a straight forward
manner, has hounded our relationship since the beginning. Since you
deny the validity or usefulness of logic, yet continue to use logical
propositions in your descriptions of reality, I can only conclude that
at no time have you ever said anything that actually was meaningful.
It may have made sense at the time, just as it makes sense when
you say "All dogs have 4 legs", but later when I hear "And my dog has
3 legs", I know that whatever you meant by those two sentences was
certainly not what I nor anyone else meant by them.
Thus people who deny the validity and usefulness of logic, people
with broken minds, can carry on seemingly meaningful conversations
with others, even reach apparent agreements, but the others are
talking with a broken mind that is merely spewing phrases unrelated to
each other no matter the apparent coherency of the presentation.
Once the internal inconsistencies are spotted in the spew, one
takes the presenter to task for them, if the presenter weasels and
refuses to come clean and ethical about their logic, then one condemns
the presenter's mind as broken and an abomination before God and be
done with them.
Broken minds and the willful use of illogic in the pretense to
wisdom is a matter of criminal ethics.
Basically in a different place and different time, broken minds
that refuse to fix, or are unable to fix, should be executed and
removed as they are a pox upon the face of existence, and probably the
sum total source of what is wrong with life on Earth.
Homer
>- CBW
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Feb 20 12:00:04 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic1.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcbYeVURT1lqxE3HERAq5tAJ9OxFHj2WecTaThJWdF5Bap3vz/LwCfWl+e
leBY/4qUueW3lJgH6srfv8w=
=SeJc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, February 18, 2019
ADORE85 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ON THE WINGS OF THE DICOM II
>Hi
>Thanks for responding.
>The URL for your posting is:
>
>http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore
>
> I have never run terminals that were goals, so I don't understand
>what you mean by "run the item". I didn't do the clearing course or
>OT levels so I don't know the procedure. What I am looking for is a
>process that I can run for years if need be (as a way to complement
>and give me diversion from running just BT's forever), that will keep
>on finding and blowing charge.
>
> I am doing "free solo" on BT's and it has been great. And I have
>tried UCP and felt totally stoned after the session, and couldn't run
>BT's via Free Solo method very well since then, so I am afraid to try
>UCP now, maybe I should have run a havingness process after but I
>didn't. Your suggestions are greatly appreciated.
>
XXXXX
OK, first each person has their own path.
Some people, if you don't GIVE them any tech, they don't HAVE any
tech. You see the problem with this, right?
Each person must come up with their own tech ultimately for their
final approaches to total freedom. Yes other's can benefit from this,
so share what you find. But my route won't be yours, hopefully! :)
Now to answer your question.
The primary thing the being is doing wrong is dramatizing.
To dramatize means to bring drama to, and then to act out within
the context of that drama with serious seriousness.
Drama is permanence, importance, seriousness and pain.
All forms of permanent loss etc. Notce that even being stuck
with a gorgeous girl forever is a form of permanent loss to a being
that wants the freedom to come and go forever for free.
Ok, so the being is dramatizing 'items'.
Take respect and not respect. He respects some things, and
doesn't respect other things, and he takes his respect VERY SERIOUSLY.
You see, it owns him, he doesn't own it. He isn't free to make things
he would not respect and to destroy things he does respect, but as a
sovereign Creator in control of his own experience as a Creature, he
has to be able to make both sides of the wings of the dicom. The
Void, freedom, lives in the center of the wings.
He is parked at the respect end of the wing, trying to be
respectable and fighting everything that is not respectable, and thus
sliding ever so inexorably towards the other side of the wings.
Eventually he becomes an abomination.
So you run any process you know that will break the process of
dramatization, of taking respect and not respect seriously,
permanently, importantly and with pain etc.
You have simple dianetics "Locate an incident of respect/not
respect", you have all the Grades, Comm, problems, withholds, arc
breaks, make wrongs, service fac computations on the subjects of
respect and not respect, and everyone else's also. You have goals and
terminals on respect and not respect and you have the whole CDEINR
scale on respect and not respect.
You also have Adorian stair cases like
The Beauty of Respect
The Ugly of Respect
The Beauty of No Respect
The Ugly of No Respect
So that adds up to about 2 million different 'processes' to run
on the pc and his items, so you choose the one that indicates.
Simply "What do you respect?", "What do you not respect?" is
enough to break into the dramatization while it is going on and kick
the being upstairs to Creator/Author and away from Creature/Character.
We want the being willing and able to artistically make both
sides of all dicoms, good and evil, light and dark, love and hate etc.
The Creator as Author creates tapestries of space/time manifestations
of these dicoms at war with each other.
God is not good. God is Author. Creatures/Characters are good
or evil, and to the degree that they take themselves seriously,
permanently, importantly and with pain, they lose. Because there is
no willingness to create the other side. Once the Good get the idea
"Hey lets create some evil so we can have a game!" they are no longer
good, they are Author again. That is the final E/P of all auditing.
It doesn't matter WHO you audit, yourself, your body, your
friends, your families, bugs, animals, universes, gods, BT's, etc.
Everyone is dramatizing. Wherever you can get a wedge in that
dramatization, no matter who it is, you free someone from something.
The point is to find deep items, for example just for yuks, try
1.) Respect - Not Respect
2.) Chosen - Not Chosen
3.) Benefit - Detriment
Spot them in operation, that is the basic 'process'. Everything
more complicated than that is rote mechanical auditing that works and
serves its purpose but eventually is just so much dev-t, to a mind
that can make and not make at will.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Feb 18 12:00:04 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore85.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcauSVURT1lqxE3HERAmnGAJ92qxdsHO91ZZLx5fYmrUE0V0fjngCfZibw
XKkx6ryyRtsdfQS6rEfpISA=
=QKAU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ON THE WINGS OF THE DICOM II
>Hi
>Thanks for responding.
>The URL for your posting is:
>
>http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore
>
> I have never run terminals that were goals, so I don't understand
>what you mean by "run the item". I didn't do the clearing course or
>OT levels so I don't know the procedure. What I am looking for is a
>process that I can run for years if need be (as a way to complement
>and give me diversion from running just BT's forever), that will keep
>on finding and blowing charge.
>
> I am doing "free solo" on BT's and it has been great. And I have
>tried UCP and felt totally stoned after the session, and couldn't run
>BT's via Free Solo method very well since then, so I am afraid to try
>UCP now, maybe I should have run a havingness process after but I
>didn't. Your suggestions are greatly appreciated.
>
XXXXX
OK, first each person has their own path.
Some people, if you don't GIVE them any tech, they don't HAVE any
tech. You see the problem with this, right?
Each person must come up with their own tech ultimately for their
final approaches to total freedom. Yes other's can benefit from this,
so share what you find. But my route won't be yours, hopefully! :)
Now to answer your question.
The primary thing the being is doing wrong is dramatizing.
To dramatize means to bring drama to, and then to act out within
the context of that drama with serious seriousness.
Drama is permanence, importance, seriousness and pain.
All forms of permanent loss etc. Notce that even being stuck
with a gorgeous girl forever is a form of permanent loss to a being
that wants the freedom to come and go forever for free.
Ok, so the being is dramatizing 'items'.
Take respect and not respect. He respects some things, and
doesn't respect other things, and he takes his respect VERY SERIOUSLY.
You see, it owns him, he doesn't own it. He isn't free to make things
he would not respect and to destroy things he does respect, but as a
sovereign Creator in control of his own experience as a Creature, he
has to be able to make both sides of the wings of the dicom. The
Void, freedom, lives in the center of the wings.
He is parked at the respect end of the wing, trying to be
respectable and fighting everything that is not respectable, and thus
sliding ever so inexorably towards the other side of the wings.
Eventually he becomes an abomination.
So you run any process you know that will break the process of
dramatization, of taking respect and not respect seriously,
permanently, importantly and with pain etc.
You have simple dianetics "Locate an incident of respect/not
respect", you have all the Grades, Comm, problems, withholds, arc
breaks, make wrongs, service fac computations on the subjects of
respect and not respect, and everyone else's also. You have goals and
terminals on respect and not respect and you have the whole CDEINR
scale on respect and not respect.
You also have Adorian stair cases like
The Beauty of Respect
The Ugly of Respect
The Beauty of No Respect
The Ugly of No Respect
So that adds up to about 2 million different 'processes' to run
on the pc and his items, so you choose the one that indicates.
Simply "What do you respect?", "What do you not respect?" is
enough to break into the dramatization while it is going on and kick
the being upstairs to Creator/Author and away from Creature/Character.
We want the being willing and able to artistically make both
sides of all dicoms, good and evil, light and dark, love and hate etc.
The Creator as Author creates tapestries of space/time manifestations
of these dicoms at war with each other.
God is not good. God is Author. Creatures/Characters are good
or evil, and to the degree that they take themselves seriously,
permanently, importantly and with pain, they lose. Because there is
no willingness to create the other side. Once the Good get the idea
"Hey lets create some evil so we can have a game!" they are no longer
good, they are Author again. That is the final E/P of all auditing.
It doesn't matter WHO you audit, yourself, your body, your
friends, your families, bugs, animals, universes, gods, BT's, etc.
Everyone is dramatizing. Wherever you can get a wedge in that
dramatization, no matter who it is, you free someone from something.
The point is to find deep items, for example just for yuks, try
1.) Respect - Not Respect
2.) Chosen - Not Chosen
3.) Benefit - Detriment
Spot them in operation, that is the basic 'process'. Everything
more complicated than that is rote mechanical auditing that works and
serves its purpose but eventually is just so much dev-t, to a mind
that can make and not make at will.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Feb 18 12:00:04 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore85.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcauSVURT1lqxE3HERAmnGAJ92qxdsHO91ZZLx5fYmrUE0V0fjngCfZibw
XKkx6ryyRtsdfQS6rEfpISA=
=QKAU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE657 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WHAT DO YOU WANT?
"Taking responsibility" has two distinct meanings.
First it means to own up to having caused something that one might
have been denying before.
Dufus has been throwing his trash out the window on the street and
when confronted with this by a neighbor Dufus says "Oh no, not me, that
was Goober who did that."
The hell it was.
People who can't own up to what they did, and must find someone else
to blame things on, are on a downward dwindling spiral that ends in a pit
so deep there is no recovery.
Well maybe some recovery.
The second meaning of to "take responsibility" doesn't mean to own up
to having caused the mess, but offering to go DO something about the mess,
adding one's own cause into a pre existing situation in order to improve
it.
So you ask Goober if he is willing to go clean up the mess that Dufus
made and he says "I am all over it boss!" and soon the street is clean
again and stays that way.
You see Goober took responsibility OVER the state of the street by
adding his cause into a preexisting situation in order to make it better.
Technically speaking Dufus should take responsibility FOR the mess,
and Goober is taking responsibility OVER the mess.
To take responsibility for something means to own up to having caused
it.
"The buck stops here, but then goes to my wife."
To take responsibility over something means to add your own
responsibility into an existing mess that you did not cause in order to
improve it.
So as you run the responsibility process, your pc (preclear) will
realize he is denying responsibility for things he knows damn well he
caused but hopes nobody else noticed, and trying to own up to things he
didn't actually do, and also trying to not take responsibility over areas
in life he could do something about.
He will also be found to be trying to actually take responsibility
over some areas in life that are so large they would swamp Hercules and
Atlas working together.
Ever notice the beaten look on his face? That's him trying to save
the world and going into despair about it.
There is actually a scale of descent in these matters, first the
being denies having caused something he caused. At the top of the tone
scale this is grand artistry in order to have a game. Lower down it is
pure cowardice and fear of consequences. People will blame him for what he
created.
Lower down he will try to take responsibility for areas in his life
that he did not create in order to make up for his prior messes.
But he will try to take responsibility for something too big, fails,
causes accidental harm instead, then starts to refuse responsibility for
the harm and for other things in general and eventually ends up down tone
with a parachute preparing to bungy jump into that pit we talked about
above from which few return.
They like to receive mail though, just drop it over the edge.
So these matters of responsibility and no responsibility are a big
deal to the spiritual journey of a being. And running the responsibility
process in the background for a long time over many months and years will
go a long ways towards keeping him oriented on the straight and narrow.
He is trying to help, but ends up harming, or people claim that he
has, and thus he gives up and starts to harm instead as that is what he
seems to be good at.
Now once your pc has had a few of those walls of pain turn on and run
out, that we talked about in the last posting, and has had enough wins
running responsibility that he sees pretty much how it all works, it is
time to start him on the next process, which is to find out what he wants
so bad.
You run this simply with,
"What do you want?"
"What do you not want?"
Not want means both what does he not care about, and what does he
wish weren't there.
"Get rid of goals" tend to clog a person who has already given up on
a "put it there goal" which is much higher tone and creative.
But both sides have to be run.
He wants to save the world because they wouldn't let him put his
paintings up in the park you see? So first you rehab his true desires,
and then perhaps he will have a different view on saving the world and
crushing himself under the weight of that alone.
Now this is a long slow process, he will take hours to answer each
auditing question, go deep into reverie, wander around in black sticky
masses just endlessly until he comes up with another answer to the
question. It still won't be the final answer, but each one will bring him
closer and closer to the truth of what he really wants and what is really
bringing him down.
You know it has been said by LRH that finding a person's true desires
in life would raise the dead, I just have to add that if you do, they
won't stay around to help you afterwards because they will be off DOING
the calling of their hearts shortly thereafter.
Now it is beyond the conception of most people that anyone could want
something and not know it any more.
But what do you think is underlying all that pain you are in all day
long? Genetics? Old Age.
Man you got no concept of old, and believe me once the body dies, ALL
those walls of pain will follow you to your next life.
They are STRONGER in between lives, and one dives into another body
in the hope of forgetting them all and numbing them out with the
distraction of life.
The problem is if you don't know what you want, then everything you
are doing all day long must be pursuing something else.
EVERY BREATH YOU TAKE IS GOING SOUTH WHEN YOU NEED TO GO NORTH.
And you wonder why you can't breath.
So running these two process in tandem will start to really fix a
being up but good.
Run
"Spot something you are responsible for."
"Spot something you are not responsible for."
until he owns up to what he has done and stops owning up to what he
hasn't done, both good and bad, and he is able again to take
responsibility responsibly so that he can win rather than lose.
Then run simply,
"What do you want?"
until he has something to take responsibility for and over, and his
space straightens out, all the mental and emotional enturbulation smooths
out, its like the ripples in the river just disappear, and he is suddenly
feeling good again and he knows which way the river is running so he can
swim in the right direction, rather than go around and around in endless
eddies of sewage.
This can be really quite startling.
Make sure he pays you for that session before he leaves the room,
because he won't be coming back.
Homer
P.S.
Among other things what the being really wants back is his true Self.
Eventually you will need to run
"Spot NO Self."
"Spot SOME Self."
Denial of Self is much of what is killing him.
You know he is getting close when the lights starting
turning back on for him.
Light is made of clear harmony, gorgeous beauty, majesty, love,
admiration, respect and magnificence. Not to mention, cool, class,
halcyon, thrill and romance, adoration, pride and glory.
If you aren't getting a mile wide smile out of this and lots
of classy tears, you just aren't running it.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Mar 22 00:51:13 EDT 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Feb 16 12:00:04 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore657.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcaEGVURT1lqxE3HERAqPVAKCvCJaDOIg9k6bfnLuWOzjQ6RrqegCgqkRq
cHcWafM2gvWceZprTdwAtqE=
=q98L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WHAT DO YOU WANT?
"Taking responsibility" has two distinct meanings.
First it means to own up to having caused something that one might
have been denying before.
Dufus has been throwing his trash out the window on the street and
when confronted with this by a neighbor Dufus says "Oh no, not me, that
was Goober who did that."
The hell it was.
People who can't own up to what they did, and must find someone else
to blame things on, are on a downward dwindling spiral that ends in a pit
so deep there is no recovery.
Well maybe some recovery.
The second meaning of to "take responsibility" doesn't mean to own up
to having caused the mess, but offering to go DO something about the mess,
adding one's own cause into a pre existing situation in order to improve
it.
So you ask Goober if he is willing to go clean up the mess that Dufus
made and he says "I am all over it boss!" and soon the street is clean
again and stays that way.
You see Goober took responsibility OVER the state of the street by
adding his cause into a preexisting situation in order to make it better.
Technically speaking Dufus should take responsibility FOR the mess,
and Goober is taking responsibility OVER the mess.
To take responsibility for something means to own up to having caused
it.
"The buck stops here, but then goes to my wife."
To take responsibility over something means to add your own
responsibility into an existing mess that you did not cause in order to
improve it.
So as you run the responsibility process, your pc (preclear) will
realize he is denying responsibility for things he knows damn well he
caused but hopes nobody else noticed, and trying to own up to things he
didn't actually do, and also trying to not take responsibility over areas
in life he could do something about.
He will also be found to be trying to actually take responsibility
over some areas in life that are so large they would swamp Hercules and
Atlas working together.
Ever notice the beaten look on his face? That's him trying to save
the world and going into despair about it.
There is actually a scale of descent in these matters, first the
being denies having caused something he caused. At the top of the tone
scale this is grand artistry in order to have a game. Lower down it is
pure cowardice and fear of consequences. People will blame him for what he
created.
Lower down he will try to take responsibility for areas in his life
that he did not create in order to make up for his prior messes.
But he will try to take responsibility for something too big, fails,
causes accidental harm instead, then starts to refuse responsibility for
the harm and for other things in general and eventually ends up down tone
with a parachute preparing to bungy jump into that pit we talked about
above from which few return.
They like to receive mail though, just drop it over the edge.
So these matters of responsibility and no responsibility are a big
deal to the spiritual journey of a being. And running the responsibility
process in the background for a long time over many months and years will
go a long ways towards keeping him oriented on the straight and narrow.
He is trying to help, but ends up harming, or people claim that he
has, and thus he gives up and starts to harm instead as that is what he
seems to be good at.
Now once your pc has had a few of those walls of pain turn on and run
out, that we talked about in the last posting, and has had enough wins
running responsibility that he sees pretty much how it all works, it is
time to start him on the next process, which is to find out what he wants
so bad.
You run this simply with,
"What do you want?"
"What do you not want?"
Not want means both what does he not care about, and what does he
wish weren't there.
"Get rid of goals" tend to clog a person who has already given up on
a "put it there goal" which is much higher tone and creative.
But both sides have to be run.
He wants to save the world because they wouldn't let him put his
paintings up in the park you see? So first you rehab his true desires,
and then perhaps he will have a different view on saving the world and
crushing himself under the weight of that alone.
Now this is a long slow process, he will take hours to answer each
auditing question, go deep into reverie, wander around in black sticky
masses just endlessly until he comes up with another answer to the
question. It still won't be the final answer, but each one will bring him
closer and closer to the truth of what he really wants and what is really
bringing him down.
You know it has been said by LRH that finding a person's true desires
in life would raise the dead, I just have to add that if you do, they
won't stay around to help you afterwards because they will be off DOING
the calling of their hearts shortly thereafter.
Now it is beyond the conception of most people that anyone could want
something and not know it any more.
But what do you think is underlying all that pain you are in all day
long? Genetics? Old Age.
Man you got no concept of old, and believe me once the body dies, ALL
those walls of pain will follow you to your next life.
They are STRONGER in between lives, and one dives into another body
in the hope of forgetting them all and numbing them out with the
distraction of life.
The problem is if you don't know what you want, then everything you
are doing all day long must be pursuing something else.
EVERY BREATH YOU TAKE IS GOING SOUTH WHEN YOU NEED TO GO NORTH.
And you wonder why you can't breath.
So running these two process in tandem will start to really fix a
being up but good.
Run
"Spot something you are responsible for."
"Spot something you are not responsible for."
until he owns up to what he has done and stops owning up to what he
hasn't done, both good and bad, and he is able again to take
responsibility responsibly so that he can win rather than lose.
Then run simply,
"What do you want?"
until he has something to take responsibility for and over, and his
space straightens out, all the mental and emotional enturbulation smooths
out, its like the ripples in the river just disappear, and he is suddenly
feeling good again and he knows which way the river is running so he can
swim in the right direction, rather than go around and around in endless
eddies of sewage.
This can be really quite startling.
Make sure he pays you for that session before he leaves the room,
because he won't be coming back.
Homer
P.S.
Among other things what the being really wants back is his true Self.
Eventually you will need to run
"Spot NO Self."
"Spot SOME Self."
Denial of Self is much of what is killing him.
You know he is getting close when the lights starting
turning back on for him.
Light is made of clear harmony, gorgeous beauty, majesty, love,
admiration, respect and magnificence. Not to mention, cool, class,
halcyon, thrill and romance, adoration, pride and glory.
If you aren't getting a mile wide smile out of this and lots
of classy tears, you just aren't running it.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Mar 22 00:51:13 EDT 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Feb 16 12:00:04 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore657.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcaEGVURT1lqxE3HERAqPVAKCvCJaDOIg9k6bfnLuWOzjQ6RrqegCgqkRq
cHcWafM2gvWceZprTdwAtqE=
=q98L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, February 14, 2019
ADORE142 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Homer Wilson Smith (homer@lightlink.com) wrote:
>> A line needs one dimension.
>A point is 0 dimensions? because it's a postulate or because it has no
>extension? Duh?! I will get this...
Point is 0 dimensions
Line is 1 dimension
Square is 2 dimensions
Cube is 3 dimensions
Hypercube is 4 dimensions
A point has no extension (not zero extension mind you, NO
extension) because it has no dimensions in which to have extension.
A line can be 0 inches long. It has one dimension, so it can
have 0 extension. 0 extension is not NO extension, 0 extension is
quite some extension, it just happens to be zero.
A line that is 0 inches long is not the same as a point that has
no dimension in which to have extension.
Having a dimension with zero extension along it is different then
not having the dimension in the first place.
Look at it this way.
We see a 3 dimensional spatial world around us.
So you have a chunk of gold that is {2 x 2 x 2} or 8 cubic
inches, that's a lot of gold, has weight, value etc.
OK, assume there is a 4th dimension we just can't see it.
How thick is your gold in the 4th dimension?
If its 0 thick in the 4th dimension, then we have a 4 dimensional
piece of gold that is 2 x 2 x 2 x 0 which is 0 hypercubic inches of
gold.
That's no gold dude.
So if there IS a 4th dimension to our universe it HAS to have
SOME finitely large non zero thickness, or else the whole universe is
reduced to nothing.
If the universe is 3 dimensional, your gold cube is {2,2,2}.
If the universe is 4 dimensional, then your gold cube is
{2,2,2,x} where x must be greater than zero.
Having a dimension, and then having zero extension along that
dimension reduces the whole object to nada.
So if you want to keep your objects around, make sure that when
you give them another dimension you give them SOME non zero extension
in that dimension, otherwise with zero extension along any dimension,
they become nothing.
Homer
>- CBW
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Feb 13 12:00:05 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore142.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcZE0WURT1lqxE3HERAjCRAJ9lvv+YfFwSM9Qo8O5BBOFb/s9a8gCfb8bP
ig6bB6wvjBk144NVH2zK25s=
=vMqk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Homer Wilson Smith (homer@lightlink.com) wrote:
>> A line needs one dimension.
>A point is 0 dimensions? because it's a postulate or because it has no
>extension? Duh?! I will get this...
Point is 0 dimensions
Line is 1 dimension
Square is 2 dimensions
Cube is 3 dimensions
Hypercube is 4 dimensions
A point has no extension (not zero extension mind you, NO
extension) because it has no dimensions in which to have extension.
A line can be 0 inches long. It has one dimension, so it can
have 0 extension. 0 extension is not NO extension, 0 extension is
quite some extension, it just happens to be zero.
A line that is 0 inches long is not the same as a point that has
no dimension in which to have extension.
Having a dimension with zero extension along it is different then
not having the dimension in the first place.
Look at it this way.
We see a 3 dimensional spatial world around us.
So you have a chunk of gold that is {2 x 2 x 2} or 8 cubic
inches, that's a lot of gold, has weight, value etc.
OK, assume there is a 4th dimension we just can't see it.
How thick is your gold in the 4th dimension?
If its 0 thick in the 4th dimension, then we have a 4 dimensional
piece of gold that is 2 x 2 x 2 x 0 which is 0 hypercubic inches of
gold.
That's no gold dude.
So if there IS a 4th dimension to our universe it HAS to have
SOME finitely large non zero thickness, or else the whole universe is
reduced to nothing.
If the universe is 3 dimensional, your gold cube is {2,2,2}.
If the universe is 4 dimensional, then your gold cube is
{2,2,2,x} where x must be greater than zero.
Having a dimension, and then having zero extension along that
dimension reduces the whole object to nada.
So if you want to keep your objects around, make sure that when
you give them another dimension you give them SOME non zero extension
in that dimension, otherwise with zero extension along any dimension,
they become nothing.
Homer
>- CBW
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Feb 13 12:00:05 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore142.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcZE0WURT1lqxE3HERAjCRAJ9lvv+YfFwSM9Qo8O5BBOFb/s9a8gCfb8bP
ig6bB6wvjBk144NVH2zK25s=
=vMqk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, February 11, 2019
Lollipop Religions
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
LOLLIPOP RELIGIONS
A lollipop religion is one that teachs us that God is a God
of Behavior, rather than a God of Creation.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Feb 11 15:47:52 EST 2019
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1051.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcYd95URT1lqxE3HERAuAcAJ9K7VCd49OatqYBE1YWjPEtwMIGFgCg17yH
BU2HArsIfAYDNyzfxE9Bjq8=
=ThPB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
LOLLIPOP RELIGIONS
A lollipop religion is one that teachs us that God is a God
of Behavior, rather than a God of Creation.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Feb 11 15:47:52 EST 2019
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1051.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcYd95URT1lqxE3HERAuAcAJ9K7VCd49OatqYBE1YWjPEtwMIGFgCg17yH
BU2HArsIfAYDNyzfxE9Bjq8=
=ThPB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADO16 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PERSISTENCE AND VANISHMENT
ADO - 16
27 March 2005
Copyright (C) 2005 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
PERSISTENCE AND VANISHMENT
There are two broad goals that can be pursued in any universe.
They are,
The goal to create a persistence.
The goal to create a vanishment.
"What do you wish to make persist?"
"What do you wish to make vanish?"
(Don't run what questions. Use:
"Get the idea of making something persist."
"Get the idea of making something vanish.")
One then begins to dramatize these goals.
To dramatize means to "BRING DRAMA TO".
Drama means "seriousness, importance, *PERMANENCE* and pain."
"What do you wish to make persist *FOREVER*?"
"What do you wish to make vanish *FOREVER*?"
Forevers violate the space/time WHILES in which things are created
and are the sole source of aberration and charge.
The only things which are forever are people and peace.
Trying to make someone live forever or go to heaven or hell forever
is trying to make someone or something persist forever.
Trying to make someone die forever is trying to make someone vanish
forever.
"Everyone lives forever where there is no time.
No one lives forever where there is time. " - Adore
Eternality is timeless immortality, not temporal immortality, which
is a hell of magnitude, no eternal sleep.
PERSISTERS AND VANISHERS
In the beginning of a universe most beings are bent on making
things persist. It is hard to get things to persist and a lot of
effort, intelligence and beauty are invested in doing so.
They would consider themselves opposed by anyone trying to make
things vanish. Such a vanisher would be an SP (Suppressive Person) to
them, to whom they were PTS (Potential Trouble Source, roller coasters,
loses gain, dives down the tone scale to get better etc.) The vanisher
SP would be trying to unmock them and their persistences.
Later in the universe, people begin to change their minds, they
consider there is too much persistence, they may want to create some new
persistences but there is too much old persistence in the way, or maybe
they want to end it all and go back to Big Snooze (native state) for a
while, so they take up vanishing things.
Perhaps they join the Church of Scientology which was mocked up to
unmock things, and they audit people helping them to vanish old unwanted
persistences, they become Professional Class IV Vanishers.
It is hard to get things to vanish, and a lot of effort,
intelligence and beauty is invested in doing so.
Such people would consider themselves opposed by anyone trying to
make things persist. Such a persister would be an SP to them, and to
whom they were PTS. The SP would be trying to mock them up, get them to
remain stuck in mud etc.
Unmocking is only a problem to those trying to mock up.
Mocking up is only a problem to those trying to unmock.
During the change over period from universe creation to universe
removal or upgrade, a lot of people who were persisters become
vanishers, thus their concept of who or what an SP is changes with them.
This can have serious effects.
If a single person in a group changes from persister to vanisher,
he will suddenly find himself opposed by his whole group, and all his
prior friends become SP's to him.
But look at it from the group's point of view. They are all still
trying to persist, but their member is now trying to help them vanish
things, so the group considers the single member similar to the many
SP's on the track that have tried to unmock them early on.
Last thing you want to do is restimulate someone's Nemesis One and
have him overlay it on you!
He's been hunting his Nemesis One for *EONS* and now he's found it,
you! You want that?
Much of the disaffection between Scientologists and family members
can be explained in this way. The scientologist is trying to vanish,
but the family members are still trying to persist.
Vanishers give persisters the willies.
Persisters attribute the willies not only to the scientologist
trying to 'help' them, but to the whole oraganization behind him.
HELP
Offering to 'help' someone change from persistence to vanishment is
an insult, invalidation and wrong item for them. It will only make them
howling mad at you.
Now part of the problem is that Scientology was DEFINED as the
science of vanishing, of unmocking, to wit: "the science of knowing how
to know answers to questions." - PXL (Phoenix Lectures)
That's the science of how to unmock questions, or the ignoranace
between the question and the answer.
But during the earlier persistence phase, people don't want to
know, they don't want to vanish, they want to mockup unconfrontable
mysteries and unknowables so they can have a game and get sucked down to
the bottom of the tone scale in peace.
THEY WANT TO GET LOST, they are tired of seeing home around every
corner.
Vanishing something is an interruption, you see, of their sovereign
desire.
They are tired of waking up half way down the tone scale (fear)
thinking "Damn lost another one to as-isness!"
Its like a dream ending right in the middle just when it was
getting good no matter how much of a nightmare it was.
That means during the persistence phase we don't need to know how
to unmock things, we need to know how to mock them up and get them to
persist like rock, tar, amber, obsidian glass and crazy glue, until we
can't get rid of them no matter what.
That's what most persisters are trying to do, HAVE *FOREVER*.
Their favorite havingness is Obsidian Glass.
But to complete the while, since nothing is forever in time, we
have to change from a persistence phase over to a vanishing phase so we
can end the while in peace and start a new one.
So during the vanishment phase we need to know how to undo all this
stuff we mocked up to persist forever during the persistence phase.
So no problem, Scientology actually encompases both sides of the
dicom, because if you know how to know answers to questions, you
certainly know how to NOT know answers to questions!
So if we define Scientology as the science of knowing how to not
know and know answers to questions, then we have a complete subject.
The point then is when you approach a particular person to 'help
them', you first have to determine which side of the fence they are on.
Are they a persister or a vanisher, or someone on the verge of
shifting over?
If they are a persister you help them persist.
If they are a vanisher you help them vanish.
If they are on the verge, you help them see both sides and make a
SELF DETERMINED decision about which side of the fence they really want
to be on, and then you help them accordingly.
Sometimes a persister no longer knows he could be a vanisher, and a
vanisher doesn't know he could be a persister. So giving them a little
education on the matter gives them a better view of their possibilities,
and they can determine for themselves which side they wish to befriend
at the time.
YOU NEVER TRY TO CHANGE WHICH SIDE OF THE DICOM THEY ARE ON,
because if you do, you can only do so by being on the other side of the
fence they are presently on.
You want someone who is a persister to become a vanisher? That
means YOU must already by a vanisher, you see?
That makes you their SP, which then makes them your SP.
PTSness results from trying to make the SP wrong.
PTSness is born of a NEED to change someone else who is being
suppressive to your goals. If you can't put them there and walk away
from them, then THEY are putting YOU into action using your need to
change them, and that is your PTSness to them.
The SP controls the PTS person by involving the PTSer endlessly in
trying to change, make wrong or destroy the SP.
PTSness results from trying to restore affinity with someone, the
perceived SP, by getting them to AGREE with you.
Affinity for disagreement is the only real freedom from PTSness
there is.
For a persister, making the SP wrong consists of trying to change a
vanisher into a persister like himself, thus restoring agreement across
all parties that things are better persisting.
For a vanisher, making the SP wrong consists of trying to change a
persister into a vanisher like himself, thus restoring agreement across
all parties that things are better vanishing.
Both merely end up howling mad at each other.
To run this, list for who or what makes you howling mad.
(Find it by running "Get the idea of being howling mad.")
Then spot in this conflict the various goals on either side to
persist or vanish, and how they are locking up with each other
*FOREVER*.
You will come to know what charge is.
If you understand that BEINGness is vanishment out of time, and
BECOMINGness is persistence in time, then you can audit the conflicts
between BEING and BECOMING, ie the conflict between the goals to BE and
to BECOME.
"The way to BE the Creator is to BE the Creator (out of time)
BECOMING the Creature (in time). Coming into time puts you out." -
Adore
The following is tech from 2014, so you will have to wait a bit to
get the full measure of it.
Since beingness has a natural affinity for itself, in self and in
others, and becomingness doesn't, when someone can't get others to like
him, he is usually trying to appeal to their becomingness, rather than
their beingness.
He finds their becomingness attractive, so he tries to attract them
with his becomingness. No matter how 'becoming' a young girl might
look, becomingness is filth on the face of Spirit.
Once one sees the beauty of being, one becomes abashed that one
ever tried to attract someone with becomingness.
Serious becomingnesses are created in order to break apart that
natural affinity between beingnesses so that serious games can take
place, those that try to make something or nothing of each other
FOREVER.
Your body and its accoutrements are a BECOMINGNESS in time.
Your spirit is a BEINGNESS outside of time.
You may think you are BEING a body, but you aren't, you are
BECOMING a body, over and over, each moment of time, as each second
passes by.
Homer
Sat Sep 27 23:35:43 EDT 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 27 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado16.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFUnmhpURT1lqxE3HERAplrAKCH98IDQXdvwgDNmB7/hf6vFuK/BwCgy25o
5RcPRAlDWtm06cnw6/fqGvU=
=qPe4
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sat Dec 27 12:50:03 EST 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Feb 10 12:00:06 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado16.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcYFiWURT1lqxE3HERAo6xAKDB9i0pd9narWx7LvlcGPrsSW19jQCfSaD4
BPb2328SR9cUeUr5H9QouTw=
=hMtj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
PERSISTENCE AND VANISHMENT
ADO - 16
27 March 2005
Copyright (C) 2005 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
PERSISTENCE AND VANISHMENT
There are two broad goals that can be pursued in any universe.
They are,
The goal to create a persistence.
The goal to create a vanishment.
"What do you wish to make persist?"
"What do you wish to make vanish?"
(Don't run what questions. Use:
"Get the idea of making something persist."
"Get the idea of making something vanish.")
One then begins to dramatize these goals.
To dramatize means to "BRING DRAMA TO".
Drama means "seriousness, importance, *PERMANENCE* and pain."
"What do you wish to make persist *FOREVER*?"
"What do you wish to make vanish *FOREVER*?"
Forevers violate the space/time WHILES in which things are created
and are the sole source of aberration and charge.
The only things which are forever are people and peace.
Trying to make someone live forever or go to heaven or hell forever
is trying to make someone or something persist forever.
Trying to make someone die forever is trying to make someone vanish
forever.
"Everyone lives forever where there is no time.
No one lives forever where there is time. " - Adore
Eternality is timeless immortality, not temporal immortality, which
is a hell of magnitude, no eternal sleep.
PERSISTERS AND VANISHERS
In the beginning of a universe most beings are bent on making
things persist. It is hard to get things to persist and a lot of
effort, intelligence and beauty are invested in doing so.
They would consider themselves opposed by anyone trying to make
things vanish. Such a vanisher would be an SP (Suppressive Person) to
them, to whom they were PTS (Potential Trouble Source, roller coasters,
loses gain, dives down the tone scale to get better etc.) The vanisher
SP would be trying to unmock them and their persistences.
Later in the universe, people begin to change their minds, they
consider there is too much persistence, they may want to create some new
persistences but there is too much old persistence in the way, or maybe
they want to end it all and go back to Big Snooze (native state) for a
while, so they take up vanishing things.
Perhaps they join the Church of Scientology which was mocked up to
unmock things, and they audit people helping them to vanish old unwanted
persistences, they become Professional Class IV Vanishers.
It is hard to get things to vanish, and a lot of effort,
intelligence and beauty is invested in doing so.
Such people would consider themselves opposed by anyone trying to
make things persist. Such a persister would be an SP to them, and to
whom they were PTS. The SP would be trying to mock them up, get them to
remain stuck in mud etc.
Unmocking is only a problem to those trying to mock up.
Mocking up is only a problem to those trying to unmock.
During the change over period from universe creation to universe
removal or upgrade, a lot of people who were persisters become
vanishers, thus their concept of who or what an SP is changes with them.
This can have serious effects.
If a single person in a group changes from persister to vanisher,
he will suddenly find himself opposed by his whole group, and all his
prior friends become SP's to him.
But look at it from the group's point of view. They are all still
trying to persist, but their member is now trying to help them vanish
things, so the group considers the single member similar to the many
SP's on the track that have tried to unmock them early on.
Last thing you want to do is restimulate someone's Nemesis One and
have him overlay it on you!
He's been hunting his Nemesis One for *EONS* and now he's found it,
you! You want that?
Much of the disaffection between Scientologists and family members
can be explained in this way. The scientologist is trying to vanish,
but the family members are still trying to persist.
Vanishers give persisters the willies.
Persisters attribute the willies not only to the scientologist
trying to 'help' them, but to the whole oraganization behind him.
HELP
Offering to 'help' someone change from persistence to vanishment is
an insult, invalidation and wrong item for them. It will only make them
howling mad at you.
Now part of the problem is that Scientology was DEFINED as the
science of vanishing, of unmocking, to wit: "the science of knowing how
to know answers to questions." - PXL (Phoenix Lectures)
That's the science of how to unmock questions, or the ignoranace
between the question and the answer.
But during the earlier persistence phase, people don't want to
know, they don't want to vanish, they want to mockup unconfrontable
mysteries and unknowables so they can have a game and get sucked down to
the bottom of the tone scale in peace.
THEY WANT TO GET LOST, they are tired of seeing home around every
corner.
Vanishing something is an interruption, you see, of their sovereign
desire.
They are tired of waking up half way down the tone scale (fear)
thinking "Damn lost another one to as-isness!"
Its like a dream ending right in the middle just when it was
getting good no matter how much of a nightmare it was.
That means during the persistence phase we don't need to know how
to unmock things, we need to know how to mock them up and get them to
persist like rock, tar, amber, obsidian glass and crazy glue, until we
can't get rid of them no matter what.
That's what most persisters are trying to do, HAVE *FOREVER*.
Their favorite havingness is Obsidian Glass.
But to complete the while, since nothing is forever in time, we
have to change from a persistence phase over to a vanishing phase so we
can end the while in peace and start a new one.
So during the vanishment phase we need to know how to undo all this
stuff we mocked up to persist forever during the persistence phase.
So no problem, Scientology actually encompases both sides of the
dicom, because if you know how to know answers to questions, you
certainly know how to NOT know answers to questions!
So if we define Scientology as the science of knowing how to not
know and know answers to questions, then we have a complete subject.
The point then is when you approach a particular person to 'help
them', you first have to determine which side of the fence they are on.
Are they a persister or a vanisher, or someone on the verge of
shifting over?
If they are a persister you help them persist.
If they are a vanisher you help them vanish.
If they are on the verge, you help them see both sides and make a
SELF DETERMINED decision about which side of the fence they really want
to be on, and then you help them accordingly.
Sometimes a persister no longer knows he could be a vanisher, and a
vanisher doesn't know he could be a persister. So giving them a little
education on the matter gives them a better view of their possibilities,
and they can determine for themselves which side they wish to befriend
at the time.
YOU NEVER TRY TO CHANGE WHICH SIDE OF THE DICOM THEY ARE ON,
because if you do, you can only do so by being on the other side of the
fence they are presently on.
You want someone who is a persister to become a vanisher? That
means YOU must already by a vanisher, you see?
That makes you their SP, which then makes them your SP.
PTSness results from trying to make the SP wrong.
PTSness is born of a NEED to change someone else who is being
suppressive to your goals. If you can't put them there and walk away
from them, then THEY are putting YOU into action using your need to
change them, and that is your PTSness to them.
The SP controls the PTS person by involving the PTSer endlessly in
trying to change, make wrong or destroy the SP.
PTSness results from trying to restore affinity with someone, the
perceived SP, by getting them to AGREE with you.
Affinity for disagreement is the only real freedom from PTSness
there is.
For a persister, making the SP wrong consists of trying to change a
vanisher into a persister like himself, thus restoring agreement across
all parties that things are better persisting.
For a vanisher, making the SP wrong consists of trying to change a
persister into a vanisher like himself, thus restoring agreement across
all parties that things are better vanishing.
Both merely end up howling mad at each other.
To run this, list for who or what makes you howling mad.
(Find it by running "Get the idea of being howling mad.")
Then spot in this conflict the various goals on either side to
persist or vanish, and how they are locking up with each other
*FOREVER*.
You will come to know what charge is.
If you understand that BEINGness is vanishment out of time, and
BECOMINGness is persistence in time, then you can audit the conflicts
between BEING and BECOMING, ie the conflict between the goals to BE and
to BECOME.
"The way to BE the Creator is to BE the Creator (out of time)
BECOMING the Creature (in time). Coming into time puts you out." -
Adore
The following is tech from 2014, so you will have to wait a bit to
get the full measure of it.
Since beingness has a natural affinity for itself, in self and in
others, and becomingness doesn't, when someone can't get others to like
him, he is usually trying to appeal to their becomingness, rather than
their beingness.
He finds their becomingness attractive, so he tries to attract them
with his becomingness. No matter how 'becoming' a young girl might
look, becomingness is filth on the face of Spirit.
Once one sees the beauty of being, one becomes abashed that one
ever tried to attract someone with becomingness.
Serious becomingnesses are created in order to break apart that
natural affinity between beingnesses so that serious games can take
place, those that try to make something or nothing of each other
FOREVER.
Your body and its accoutrements are a BECOMINGNESS in time.
Your spirit is a BEINGNESS outside of time.
You may think you are BEING a body, but you aren't, you are
BECOMING a body, over and over, each moment of time, as each second
passes by.
Homer
Sat Sep 27 23:35:43 EDT 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 27 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado16.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFUnmhpURT1lqxE3HERAplrAKCH98IDQXdvwgDNmB7/hf6vFuK/BwCgy25o
5RcPRAlDWtm06cnw6/fqGvU=
=qPe4
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sat Dec 27 12:50:03 EST 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Feb 10 12:00:06 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado16.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcYFiWURT1lqxE3HERAo6xAKDB9i0pd9narWx7LvlcGPrsSW19jQCfSaD4
BPb2328SR9cUeUr5H9QouTw=
=hMtj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
ADORE482 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
VALIDITY OF THE OT LEVELS
muldoon (brian9511@dslextreme.com) wrote:
>The above is "Commodore Elron Elray"/"Capt." Bill Robertson-esque
>rationalization.
>Anyone want that?
Actually the E/P is very desirable. Running OT I is almost
certainly unquestionable, but if OT II doesn't make you wonder, nothing
will. OT III is just an incident, whether it happened or not is
interesting, but what's really interesting is how the standard bridge
doesn't wait until pc's discover it for themselves. I mean if its
there, and auditing works, and its time to run it, the engram should
just take over and convulse itself out of you, like the alien lizard
baby coughing out of your gut.
Telling people to run OT III is like telling people to run birth,
it will run when its time, I assure you.
Before that, you will get squat and false attests.
>Well, if you do, enjoy the ride.
Hubbard I believe was in a hurry and decided to violate the
auditor's code to push people along. Don't think it worked very well,
but he felt he couldn't wait until everyone else found it themselves.
Or he felt that his running of it, now made it accessible to
everyone else who wanted to run it.
He had been trying to find THE incident that everyone should run
for a long time. Why the auditor's code should break down at OT II and
III, I have no clue.
Or he made it up out of whole cloth because he was a sick mother
fucker.
But if you got to OT II, it's a bit late to be worrying about
Hubbard's intentions. I would say run it, see what happens.
Hubbard's intentions may have been bad, but also may have none the
less been unable to interfere with the channeling of the gods through
him.
Anyhow there are worse incidents on the track than OT III.
The warp core of evil still hasn't been touched, just flaunted.
When you start getting near the core, its very tempting to become
Catholic real fast.
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Apr 1 00:40:26 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Feb 5 12:00:04 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore482.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcWcEVURT1lqxE3HERAoAHAJ9IYT4C5dwCyNDkALqHyh7dC+6w8gCfeFRc
NESZv1NRwjCIzvs6kQB/gpI=
=XgqR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
VALIDITY OF THE OT LEVELS
muldoon (brian9511@dslextreme.com) wrote:
>The above is "Commodore Elron Elray"/"Capt." Bill Robertson-esque
>rationalization.
>Anyone want that?
Actually the E/P is very desirable. Running OT I is almost
certainly unquestionable, but if OT II doesn't make you wonder, nothing
will. OT III is just an incident, whether it happened or not is
interesting, but what's really interesting is how the standard bridge
doesn't wait until pc's discover it for themselves. I mean if its
there, and auditing works, and its time to run it, the engram should
just take over and convulse itself out of you, like the alien lizard
baby coughing out of your gut.
Telling people to run OT III is like telling people to run birth,
it will run when its time, I assure you.
Before that, you will get squat and false attests.
>Well, if you do, enjoy the ride.
Hubbard I believe was in a hurry and decided to violate the
auditor's code to push people along. Don't think it worked very well,
but he felt he couldn't wait until everyone else found it themselves.
Or he felt that his running of it, now made it accessible to
everyone else who wanted to run it.
He had been trying to find THE incident that everyone should run
for a long time. Why the auditor's code should break down at OT II and
III, I have no clue.
Or he made it up out of whole cloth because he was a sick mother
fucker.
But if you got to OT II, it's a bit late to be worrying about
Hubbard's intentions. I would say run it, see what happens.
Hubbard's intentions may have been bad, but also may have none the
less been unable to interfere with the channeling of the gods through
him.
Anyhow there are worse incidents on the track than OT III.
The warp core of evil still hasn't been touched, just flaunted.
When you start getting near the core, its very tempting to become
Catholic real fast.
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Apr 1 00:40:26 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Feb 5 12:00:04 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore482.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcWcEVURT1lqxE3HERAoAHAJ9IYT4C5dwCyNDkALqHyh7dC+6w8gCfeFRc
NESZv1NRwjCIzvs6kQB/gpI=
=XgqR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, February 3, 2019
ADORE238 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SESSION GOALS
> Just prior to saying, "Start of Session!", I might just ask, "What exactly
> would you like handled in this session?"
I would refuse to run this question even if it were asked
after start of session where it belongs.
Its main problem is it puts the pc into an immediate think about
what, of all the things he wants handled in life, CAN be handled in this
one session. Some things he wants handled in life are going to take more
than one session. Limiting his items to those HE thinks can be handled in
one session is a session killer.
Perhaps it is just me, but the idea that one session could completely
handle one of ANYTHING is a joke.
The way I am running it is as posted to clear-l yesterday.
What would you like to handle in life?
List it dry, noting reads and VGI items.
Just spotting the entire constellation of things wanted to be handled
will produce startling results, laughter and cognitions. He will also
note conflicts, "I want my memory back", "Who needs a memory, rather just
drop kick it over the goal post and never see it again."
Then one has to determine HOW to run the remaining items still of
interest. One imagines each item is a 'pile' of charge laid down each
time the limiting postulate was made ("I am limited") and continued by
the self answering question ("How do I handle this?") that followed.
He keeps the postulate and charge pile in restim by continuing the
questions into the future for the rest of time.
Going down the pile to the first time the postulate and question were
engaged in might be of use to find the postulate and question, but once
the postulate and question are found probably the whole pile will blow in
a line charge without recovery of specific incidents.
Another issue comes up which is the *AUDITOR'S* willingness
to run and handle items.
Never let school get in the way of your education, and never let
your Guru/CS/auditor get in the way of your case gain.
My first item on this process what do I want to handle in life was:
my life.
Meaning my life is like a somatic, I want to get rid of it
terminatedly.
VGI item was "I never want to see bodies again." Laughed for half an
hour on that one. No wonder I am black V, memory bank full of pictures of
bodies etc. Hours later visio starting to crack open etc...
Now auditor goes, "Oh no, can't have pc killing himself or engaging
in kamikaze, and we certainly don't want him dropping out of the body
game! Who would pay the cog taxes?"
So auditor refuses to run the item and auditor presses pc for items
that are acceptable to auditors.
Auditor then becomes kamikaze item.
Omni well done, and Omni Amen.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Feb 2 12:00:04 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore238.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcVcyVURT1lqxE3HERAn8KAKCFrKuzlGORnorC2FxHhk3fRx4LRgCgw2EM
Je3e86apbww+K3Hdrf7D6Qo=
=WY6o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SESSION GOALS
> Just prior to saying, "Start of Session!", I might just ask, "What exactly
> would you like handled in this session?"
I would refuse to run this question even if it were asked
after start of session where it belongs.
Its main problem is it puts the pc into an immediate think about
what, of all the things he wants handled in life, CAN be handled in this
one session. Some things he wants handled in life are going to take more
than one session. Limiting his items to those HE thinks can be handled in
one session is a session killer.
Perhaps it is just me, but the idea that one session could completely
handle one of ANYTHING is a joke.
The way I am running it is as posted to clear-l yesterday.
What would you like to handle in life?
List it dry, noting reads and VGI items.
Just spotting the entire constellation of things wanted to be handled
will produce startling results, laughter and cognitions. He will also
note conflicts, "I want my memory back", "Who needs a memory, rather just
drop kick it over the goal post and never see it again."
Then one has to determine HOW to run the remaining items still of
interest. One imagines each item is a 'pile' of charge laid down each
time the limiting postulate was made ("I am limited") and continued by
the self answering question ("How do I handle this?") that followed.
He keeps the postulate and charge pile in restim by continuing the
questions into the future for the rest of time.
Going down the pile to the first time the postulate and question were
engaged in might be of use to find the postulate and question, but once
the postulate and question are found probably the whole pile will blow in
a line charge without recovery of specific incidents.
Another issue comes up which is the *AUDITOR'S* willingness
to run and handle items.
Never let school get in the way of your education, and never let
your Guru/CS/auditor get in the way of your case gain.
My first item on this process what do I want to handle in life was:
my life.
Meaning my life is like a somatic, I want to get rid of it
terminatedly.
VGI item was "I never want to see bodies again." Laughed for half an
hour on that one. No wonder I am black V, memory bank full of pictures of
bodies etc. Hours later visio starting to crack open etc...
Now auditor goes, "Oh no, can't have pc killing himself or engaging
in kamikaze, and we certainly don't want him dropping out of the body
game! Who would pay the cog taxes?"
So auditor refuses to run the item and auditor presses pc for items
that are acceptable to auditors.
Auditor then becomes kamikaze item.
Omni well done, and Omni Amen.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Feb 2 12:00:04 EST 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore238.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFcVcyVURT1lqxE3HERAn8KAKCFrKuzlGORnorC2FxHhk3fRx4LRgCgw2EM
Je3e86apbww+K3Hdrf7D6Qo=
=WY6o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)